But it does not. It has no Electronic Viewfinder. So the EV part of the EVIL is just not there. Michael has a whole paragraph on this:

"There is no electronic eye level viewfinder at this time. It isn't clear whether or not there is one coming, though since there is a smart connector on the top of the camera that currently allows the attachment of a flash and an microphone, it is not unfeasible that an EVF lies in the future. I certainly hope so, since I believe that a lot of more serious photographers looking to add a NEX to their kit will find its lack a serious failing, and will possibly choose one of the Four Thirds competitors that at least provides this option. "

And even if they will introduce one, it will be an accessory. The camera itself will still lack the EV part.

But it does not. It has no Electronic Viewfinder. So the EV part of the EVIL is just not there. Michael has a whole paragraph on this:

"There is no electronic eye level viewfinder at this time. It isn't clear whether or not there is one coming, though since there is a smart connector on the top of the camera that currently allows the attachment of a flash and an microphone, it is not unfeasible that an EVF lies in the future. I certainly hope so, since I believe that a lot of more serious photographers looking to add a NEX to their kit will find its lack a serious failing, and will possibly choose one of the Four Thirds competitors that at least provides this option. "

And even if they will introduce one, it will be an accessory. The camera itself will still lack the EV part.

So, may I suggest MILC as in Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Compact?

Thank you for your thoughts.

I had some similar thoughts at first regarding the fact that these cameras don't seem to use a reflex system, but then I decided maybe it's right after all. I don't think reflex system has anything to do with mirrors or prisms, but in fact instead means a system to preview the image through the actual lens of the camera which these do. (as opposed to a rangefinder camera where a secondary lens system is used.

I disagree with your second point, these cameras by their very nature use an electronic viewfinder. Whether that viewfinder is one you hold up to your eye or not isn't relevant, since nothing about the term electronic viewfinder suggests anything other than a way to view the image via an electronic device rather than optically. The viewfinder system is completely electronic, whether it be an LCD on the back of the camera or a small LCD designed to be held up to your eye. (In fact, I personally have been using the Hoodman for quite some time so I'm using the LCD on the back held up to my eye.)

Personally I don't like the EVIL acronym either though it seems to be gaining momentum ( - just sounds kind of evil ). I appreciate the effort to try for an alternative. Probably too late to change things at this point.

I had some similar thoughts at first regarding the fact that these cameras don't seem to use a reflex system, but then I decided maybe it's right after all. I don't think reflex system has anything to do with mirrors or prisms, but in fact instead means a system to preview the image through the actual lens of the camera which these do. (as opposed to a rangefinder camera where a secondary lens system is used.

I think the OP is right, reflex = mirror or prism. For example, twin lens reflex cameras did not let you view thru the taking lens but were still called reflexes. Also, by your definition any $100 point-and-shoot is a reflex because you view thru the lens on the LCD screen.

I had some similar thoughts at first regarding the fact that these cameras don't seem to use a reflex system, but then I decided maybe it's right after all. I don't think reflex system has anything to do with mirrors or prisms, but in fact instead means a system to preview the image through the actual lens of the camera which these do. (as opposed to a rangefinder camera where a secondary lens system is used.

I think it does.

"A single-lens reflex (SLR) camera is a camera that typically uses a semi-automatic moving mirror system that permits the photographer to sometimes see exactly what will be captured by the film or digital imaging system, as opposed to pre-SLR cameras where the view through the viewfinder could be significantly different from what was captured on film."

I disagree with your second point, these cameras by their very nature use an electronic viewfinder. Whether that viewfinder is one you hold up to your eye or not isn't relevant, since nothing about the term electronic viewfinder suggests anything other than a way to view the image via an electronic device rather than optically. The viewfinder system is completely electronic, whether it be an LCD on the back of the camera or a small LCD designed to be held up to your eye. (In fact, I personally have been using the Hoodman for quite some time so I'm using the LCD on the back held up to my eye.)

That's an interesting PoV but I guess we'll have to agree that we disagree. Despite the fact that you can see the image in the LCD, I can't see the relationship to a viewfinder. If I may add, Michael also does not see the LCD as a viewfinder. See the quote in my OP.

Quote from: Wayne Fox

Personally I don't like the EVIL acronym either though it seems to be gaining momentum ( - just sounds kind of evil ). I appreciate the effort to try for an alternative. Probably too late to change things at this point.

Well, I am not the only one who is not happy with this acronym. Andy Westlake also sees the EV problem. He proposed ILC.

I think the OP is right, reflex = mirror or prism. For example, twin lens reflex cameras did not let you view thru the taking lens but were still called reflexes. Also, by your definition any $100 point-and-shoot is a reflex because you view thru the lens on the LCD screen.

As for a name, why not just interchangeable lens compact?

Just to make it more pronounceable. Don't you think that it's easier to say MILC (pronounced "milk") than ILC (pronounced "eelk" or as separated letters "I - L - C")?

These NEX3/NEX5 models are definitely the start and I predict will shake up the marketplace a lot more than the micro-4/3 (which are "condemned" to perpetuity with their smaller sensor size and larger-than-needed flange-back distance which will make the bodies inordinately thick) models have.